Talk here, friends.tellingtales 06:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi Tellingtales! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC) |
If you have a relationship than you probably have a conflict of interest. If you are paid in anyway, then you have to disclose that. Read WP:COI and WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I confess to further criminality. I am paid. Who else is going to update the page? No one! It's atrocious that it is so outdated and obviously until I started updating it no one has touched it for years. Is it really better to have outdated material on Wikipedia than to have it updated by someone who has been writing about it and all the projects for three years? Who else updates similar pages? It must be employees or it would never get done. tellingtales 18:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I have added a response in the Talk section of the actual page. tellingtales 18:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible
conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. I've raised your edits there as I think you need counseling by editors who work more with the problems of conflict of interest than I do.
Doug Weller
talk
Thanks. tellingtales 21:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Tellingtales. I worked on COI issues in academia for about 15 years and have also worked on them extensively here in WP. I hope you will be open to further discussion.
Wikipedia highly values contributions by subject matter experts; at the same time, experts have some special challenges when they first start editing here. Please see the essay with advice for experts, WP:EXPERTS, which discusses both sides of that coin.
One of the challenges is related to conflicts of interest (COI). I reckon you are very familiar with that concept -- it is very common in academia, at least -- but it has some interesting twists here in Wikipedia, since:
Wikipedia is a scholarly project. Per WP:NOT, one of the foundational principles here, we aim to provide the public with accepted knowledge that is well-sourced, NPOV, and yes, up-to-date.
So - it is essential that we, the community, manage COI to ensure the integrity of Wikipedia and retain the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review.
You have disclosed your connection with the Center, so disclosure is pretty much done. (but again, that is really something for other editors)
Peer review step. What we ask editors with a COI to do, is offer suggestions on the Talk page for others to review instead of directly editing the article. Going forward, please do not directly edit articles where you have a COI, but rather offer suggestions at the article's Talk page. You can do that easily - and provide notice to the community of your request - by using the "edit request" function as described in the conflict of interest guideline. There is a section at the bottom of the mustard-colored box at the top of the Talk page - there is a link at "click here" in that section. If you click that, the Wikipedia software will automatically format a section in which you can make your request. Would you please do that going forward?
Also, a wikipedia article is not an extension of any organization's website. (see WP:PROMO -- really please see that). We always look for independent sources - a whole section or article sourced from an organization's website is a pretty clear sign that COI editing has taken place and the article is unlikely to be neutral.
Please let me know if you are willing to post changes on talk pages for peer review, and if you understand why we look for independent sources instead of using some one's, or some organization's or company's, website.
I am happy to talk, if you have any questions or want to discuss anything, you can write them below. I will see your remarks. Jytdog ( talk) 20:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
OK, this will get you oriented to how this place works, and to the key policies and guidelines. It is as brief as I can make it...
The first thing, is that our mission is to produce articles that provide readers with content that summarize accepted knowledge, and to do that as a community that anyone can be a part of. That's the mission. As you can imagine, if this place had no norms, it would be a Mad Max kind of world interpersonally, and content would be a slag heap (the quality is really bad in parts, despite our best efforts). But over the past 15 years the community has developed a whole slew of norms, via lots of discussion. One of the first, is that we decide things by consensus. That decision itself, is recorded here: WP:CONSENSUS, which is one of our "policies". And when we decide things by consensus, that is not just local in space and time, but includes meta-discussions that have happened in the past. The results of those past meta-discussions are the norms that we follow now. We call them policies and guidelines - and these documents all reside in "Wikipedia space" (There is a whole forest of documents in "Wikipedia space" - pages in Wikipedia that start with "Wikipedia:AAAA" or for short, "WP:AAAA". WP:CONSENSUS is different from Consensus.)
People have tried to define Wikipedia - is it a democracy, an anarchy, secret cabal? In fact it is a clue-ocracy (that link is to a very short and important text).
There are policies and guidelines that govern content, and separate ones that govern behavior. Here is a very quick rundown:
In terms of behavior, the key norms are:
If you can get all that (the content and behavior policies and guidelines) under your belt, you will become truly "clueful", as we say. If that is where you want to go, of course. I know that was a lot of information, but hopefully it is digestable enough.
If at some point you want to create an article, here is what to do.
There you go! Let me know if you have questions about any of that.
One thing you may want to consider is doing a complete rewrite of the article about the Center, following the above method and principles. If you want to do that, you would not create a draft and put it through AfC but would follow a different process - you would create it in a sandbox (yours would be here: User:Tellingtales/sandbox - you can use that to experiment or whatever you like, as long as it related to WP) and then work with an independent editor to implement it.
Again that was a lot, but the goal is to get you somewhat oriented. Good luck! Jytdog ( talk) 04:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
A last thing, after having seen your edit here. I fixed that here, formatting the journal citation better and replacing the press release with an independent source.
On the formatting, there is a very easy and fast way to do citations.
You will notice that when you are in an edit window, that up at the top there is a toolbar. On the right, it says "Cite" and there is a little triangle next to it. If you click the triangle, another menu appears below. On the left side of that new menu bar, you will see "Templates". If you select (for example) "Cite journal", you can fill in the "doi" or the "PMID" field, and then if you click the little magnifying glass next to the field, the whole thing will auto-fill. Then you click the "insert" button at the bottom, and it will insert a ref like this (I changed the ref tags so it shows):
That takes about 10 seconds. As you can see there are templates for books, news, and websites, as well as journal articles, and each template has at least one field that you can use to autofill the rest. The autofill isn't perfect and I usually have to manually fix some things before I click "insert" but it generally works great and saves a bunch of time.
The PMID parameter is the one we care about the most for journal articles cited to support content about health.
One thing the autofill doesn't do, is add the PMC field if it is there (PMC is a link to a free fulltext version of the article). you can add that after you insert the citation, or -- while you have the "cite journal" template open -- you can click the "show/hide extra fields" button at the bottom, and you will see the PMC field on the right, near the bottom. If you add the PMC number there that will be included, like this (again I have changed the ref tags):
The autofill also doesn't add the URL if there is a free fulltext that is not in PMC. You can add that manually too, after you autofill with PMID Jytdog ( talk) 08:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Benedict Campbell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cloten. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 06:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi there! You have a custom signature set in your account preferences. Changes to Wikipedia's software have made your current custom signature invalid.
The problem: Your signature contains a syntax error or obsolete HTML tags.
The solutions: You can reset your signature to the default, you can fix your signature, or you can do nothing.
Solution 1: Reset your signature to the default:
Solution 2: Fix your custom signature:
Solution 3: Do nothing:
If you have followed these instructions and still want help, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Signatures. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Talk here, friends.tellingtales 06:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi Tellingtales! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC) |
If you have a relationship than you probably have a conflict of interest. If you are paid in anyway, then you have to disclose that. Read WP:COI and WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I confess to further criminality. I am paid. Who else is going to update the page? No one! It's atrocious that it is so outdated and obviously until I started updating it no one has touched it for years. Is it really better to have outdated material on Wikipedia than to have it updated by someone who has been writing about it and all the projects for three years? Who else updates similar pages? It must be employees or it would never get done. tellingtales 18:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I have added a response in the Talk section of the actual page. tellingtales 18:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible
conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. I've raised your edits there as I think you need counseling by editors who work more with the problems of conflict of interest than I do.
Doug Weller
talk
Thanks. tellingtales 21:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Tellingtales. I worked on COI issues in academia for about 15 years and have also worked on them extensively here in WP. I hope you will be open to further discussion.
Wikipedia highly values contributions by subject matter experts; at the same time, experts have some special challenges when they first start editing here. Please see the essay with advice for experts, WP:EXPERTS, which discusses both sides of that coin.
One of the challenges is related to conflicts of interest (COI). I reckon you are very familiar with that concept -- it is very common in academia, at least -- but it has some interesting twists here in Wikipedia, since:
Wikipedia is a scholarly project. Per WP:NOT, one of the foundational principles here, we aim to provide the public with accepted knowledge that is well-sourced, NPOV, and yes, up-to-date.
So - it is essential that we, the community, manage COI to ensure the integrity of Wikipedia and retain the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review.
You have disclosed your connection with the Center, so disclosure is pretty much done. (but again, that is really something for other editors)
Peer review step. What we ask editors with a COI to do, is offer suggestions on the Talk page for others to review instead of directly editing the article. Going forward, please do not directly edit articles where you have a COI, but rather offer suggestions at the article's Talk page. You can do that easily - and provide notice to the community of your request - by using the "edit request" function as described in the conflict of interest guideline. There is a section at the bottom of the mustard-colored box at the top of the Talk page - there is a link at "click here" in that section. If you click that, the Wikipedia software will automatically format a section in which you can make your request. Would you please do that going forward?
Also, a wikipedia article is not an extension of any organization's website. (see WP:PROMO -- really please see that). We always look for independent sources - a whole section or article sourced from an organization's website is a pretty clear sign that COI editing has taken place and the article is unlikely to be neutral.
Please let me know if you are willing to post changes on talk pages for peer review, and if you understand why we look for independent sources instead of using some one's, or some organization's or company's, website.
I am happy to talk, if you have any questions or want to discuss anything, you can write them below. I will see your remarks. Jytdog ( talk) 20:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
OK, this will get you oriented to how this place works, and to the key policies and guidelines. It is as brief as I can make it...
The first thing, is that our mission is to produce articles that provide readers with content that summarize accepted knowledge, and to do that as a community that anyone can be a part of. That's the mission. As you can imagine, if this place had no norms, it would be a Mad Max kind of world interpersonally, and content would be a slag heap (the quality is really bad in parts, despite our best efforts). But over the past 15 years the community has developed a whole slew of norms, via lots of discussion. One of the first, is that we decide things by consensus. That decision itself, is recorded here: WP:CONSENSUS, which is one of our "policies". And when we decide things by consensus, that is not just local in space and time, but includes meta-discussions that have happened in the past. The results of those past meta-discussions are the norms that we follow now. We call them policies and guidelines - and these documents all reside in "Wikipedia space" (There is a whole forest of documents in "Wikipedia space" - pages in Wikipedia that start with "Wikipedia:AAAA" or for short, "WP:AAAA". WP:CONSENSUS is different from Consensus.)
People have tried to define Wikipedia - is it a democracy, an anarchy, secret cabal? In fact it is a clue-ocracy (that link is to a very short and important text).
There are policies and guidelines that govern content, and separate ones that govern behavior. Here is a very quick rundown:
In terms of behavior, the key norms are:
If you can get all that (the content and behavior policies and guidelines) under your belt, you will become truly "clueful", as we say. If that is where you want to go, of course. I know that was a lot of information, but hopefully it is digestable enough.
If at some point you want to create an article, here is what to do.
There you go! Let me know if you have questions about any of that.
One thing you may want to consider is doing a complete rewrite of the article about the Center, following the above method and principles. If you want to do that, you would not create a draft and put it through AfC but would follow a different process - you would create it in a sandbox (yours would be here: User:Tellingtales/sandbox - you can use that to experiment or whatever you like, as long as it related to WP) and then work with an independent editor to implement it.
Again that was a lot, but the goal is to get you somewhat oriented. Good luck! Jytdog ( talk) 04:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
A last thing, after having seen your edit here. I fixed that here, formatting the journal citation better and replacing the press release with an independent source.
On the formatting, there is a very easy and fast way to do citations.
You will notice that when you are in an edit window, that up at the top there is a toolbar. On the right, it says "Cite" and there is a little triangle next to it. If you click the triangle, another menu appears below. On the left side of that new menu bar, you will see "Templates". If you select (for example) "Cite journal", you can fill in the "doi" or the "PMID" field, and then if you click the little magnifying glass next to the field, the whole thing will auto-fill. Then you click the "insert" button at the bottom, and it will insert a ref like this (I changed the ref tags so it shows):
That takes about 10 seconds. As you can see there are templates for books, news, and websites, as well as journal articles, and each template has at least one field that you can use to autofill the rest. The autofill isn't perfect and I usually have to manually fix some things before I click "insert" but it generally works great and saves a bunch of time.
The PMID parameter is the one we care about the most for journal articles cited to support content about health.
One thing the autofill doesn't do, is add the PMC field if it is there (PMC is a link to a free fulltext version of the article). you can add that after you insert the citation, or -- while you have the "cite journal" template open -- you can click the "show/hide extra fields" button at the bottom, and you will see the PMC field on the right, near the bottom. If you add the PMC number there that will be included, like this (again I have changed the ref tags):
The autofill also doesn't add the URL if there is a free fulltext that is not in PMC. You can add that manually too, after you autofill with PMID Jytdog ( talk) 08:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Benedict Campbell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cloten. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 06:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi there! You have a custom signature set in your account preferences. Changes to Wikipedia's software have made your current custom signature invalid.
The problem: Your signature contains a syntax error or obsolete HTML tags.
The solutions: You can reset your signature to the default, you can fix your signature, or you can do nothing.
Solution 1: Reset your signature to the default:
Solution 2: Fix your custom signature:
Solution 3: Do nothing:
If you have followed these instructions and still want help, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Signatures. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)